Talk:The Postman (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Metz, Walter (2004). "'Blockbusters That Failed and the Critics Who Love Them': High Theory and Low Culture in The Postman, Deep Impact, and Wild, Wild West". Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary American Cinema. Peter Lang Publishing. ISBN 0820474037.

Theaters

"The film did poorly in US theaters, grossing only $17.6 million in spite of high quality performances by Costner, Patton and Williams coupled with an inspiring theme depicting how crisis can bring out an apparently ordinary man's latent courage and leadership abilities."

Article Rewrite

I tagged the plot summary section of this article with both the plot and grammar tags. I would rewrite the section myself, but I haven't actually seen this movie so I'm afraid that in fixing grammar I might mistakenly change a plot point. Hopefully someone will take the initiative here though. Ronark (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is Richard Starkey supposed to refer to Ringo Starr? If not, it should be delinked.
• What's a bodyfather? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Postman is asked to serve as a "bodyfather" for a couple, the husband being infertile, so it is used as a term for surrogate father. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3

Is it just me or is the plot of this movie similar to the ones used in the Fallout video game series? Perhaps it's possible the games' story was based on this movie somewhat. 98.114.237.231 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• The first Fallout game was released three months before this movie. There is no chance for them to have based the game off the movie, or vice versa. The only part that is similar is nuclear war. 184.89.179.138 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot cleanup

The opening bits of the article state that the movie is set in an undisclosed apocalypse, while the first line of the plot says it is a post-nuclear war apocalypse. Can someone who has seen the movie please clarify this? 184.89.179.138 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah another part mentions an environmental apocalypse... that's not true either, as far as I can tell. Pretty sure it's nuclear war. Drhamad (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Significantly rewrote the plot section. There is little referance in the movie to the cause of the apocalypse. There are referances to "strange weather", "plague", "bugs", "3 year winters" and an implication that Nathan Holn exacerbated social trouble with no referance to nuclear war. I changed the first sentances to reflect that. 98.164.125.58 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision by Jojhutton. Continuing mentions of nuclear war is unsourced opinion unsupported by anything in the movie. Mention of cavalry and horseback in plot description as they are aspects of the artistic appearance of the movie. The original text had Abby rescued by the postman. In the movie Abby rescues the postman from execution by breaking captivity, capturing a weapon and firing, upon Bethlehem. I see no reason to eliminate the name of the actor playing Ford Lincoln Mercury. In fact wiki suggests mentioning the actor's name when the character is introduced in the plot section. The casualties are not when the postman disbands the carriers. It is immediately after the reprisal execution of civilians that the postman orders the disbanding. The letter written to Bethlehem doesn't say the government "is gone". It says the government doesn't exist. The differance between bridge city being "run" or "led" is that there can be several leaders. "Running" the city implies the Tom Petty character is the sole leader. The charater mentions he is "a town official". Nothing about him as the only town official. "Manages to rally". There is no "rallying" seen in the movie. After the cable car ride where there is a voice over of the Agincourt speech he simply appears with his troops to challange Bethlehem. I wrote it as such. These points are more accurate than the revision so I undid the revision. 98.164.125.58 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make that revert. Another user did. Could you please review the page history and then redact your comment. I do agree that the section is already far too long so it's best not to add more information than is needed. JOJ ^Hutton 13:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I made the reversion, and, as I said in my edit summary, it is because the plot is already too long and you added more unnecessary details. Changing the nuclear war claim is easy enough and does not require that the summary be further expanded. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The article had the too long tag on it beore my first edit. My first edit of the article shortened it by half. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Postman_(film)&diff=580714638&oldid=579165540 Your edits only shorten the article a few words here and there but they significantly degrade the accuracy of the plot section.